Notice of demand

I understand your argument well. Every off is the riders fault to some
extent, but it is a matter of degrees. For instance, I'd find it very hard
to crucify some poor bugger for being rear ended at the lights, but you
could still make the case against him. And so it is here. To what degree
did the dirt contribute balanced against other factors?

I'm sure it is equally full of those who do.

And whilst those fatalities continue to impact children, partners, parents
and friends I hope we all continue to do so. Don't confuse that with
endorsing a liberal right wrist or excessive risk taking.

Yes, they do. They also show that under the conditions described it is
conceivable that someone doing the "right thing" to be caught out. We both
agree that the rider is to some extent (even wholly) to blame for their
off. The question under law, is to what extent did the dirt also
contribute. I don't know the answer, but feel Sanbar is justified in posing
the question.

You claim this ng is pervaded by hoons. I'm not so sure. However I am
certain that your noble defensive riding message is neatly obfuscated by
your zealotry.

cam

 

You could at least try to point the gun in the right direction...

 

Sassenach is also easier to spell than choochter(?), too, which may be
the word you really wanted.

regards,
CrazyCam

 

sanbar wrote:

<snip photos>

I see even less of a problem with it now.

 

Yeah, I'd envisaged gravel on the road at the apex of the corner or on the
entry to the corner causing a front end lose, but it looks like the sort of
place where you'd spin up the rear and highside it... and the broken
collarbone probably would be evidence of that too. Good luck if the council
cough up cash for your gear. I doubt I'd want to use any of those photos as
supportive evidence for your case though.

Nev..
'03 ZX12R

 

In aus.motorcycles on Mon, 20 Dec 2004 01:15:27 +1100

That's a big lump of dirt?

I think you'll have a hard time with this, even at night.

Zebee

 

Although most people who know me will know this is far from the truth, but for
a moment I'll pretend that I'm one of these "riders who hardly ever ride
defensively". What vested interest do I have in supporting (if I choose to)
Sanbar's assertion that the council is in some way responsible for his
accident?

Reminds me of Dubbya's "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality.
I'm sure there are plenty of people in this NG who think that Sanbar is
responsible for his own actions and also think that you're a full of shit
dickhead. It's not all so black and white.

Nev..
'03 ZX12R

 

In this context, a person who rides a 'Chookie'.

Theo

 

They're not working.

Theo

 

Yer Nev a 15kmh drop is a huge offence in no one's eyes except Gerry's.

 

Yes, it does send the wrong message. But as yet we've not determined
exactly who was (most) reckless. Your opinion is obvious. I happen to agree
for the most part, but the world isn't so black and white as you'd have us
think. I can imagine conditions where all the defensive riding in the world
would not save your bacon. Perhaps this isn't such a case, but it does seem
sanbar feels doubt enough to test it.

I think there is a hoon element, no doubt. There are also a great many
riders for whom defensive riding principles are a part of their survival
kit.

Well, I wish you'd made that clear. From my perspective your comment lacked
compassion. I little too black is black.

As I said, your zealotry does a more than satisfactory job of that.

Oh pleeaase.

You and me both. But I can imagine circumstances where I might feel
justified to do so.

No, I don't advocate excessive litigiousness. But I do advocate the right
of an entity which genuinely feels it has been wronged, and can demonstrate
cause, to have its claim tested. Is sanbar such an entity? Trial by this
thread seems pretty inconclusive!

If only you more frequently made your point as clearly.

Not all contrary opinions are white noise, Gerry.

Yes you will have. Similarly, I hope no such idiot switches off due to same
ranting.

Yes, it is. What I meant to type was "recursion", which is a noun. That
makes it one apeice.

Right back at you.

cam

 

I've got to admit, that is not a lot of dirt.

Still, as my computer reminds me, it's not easy, being green.

-----sharks

 

I don't think the drop offends Gerry, but rather any notion that less than
100% reponsibility lies with the dropper. Nor is he super subtle in
expressing so.

cam.

 

Who said anything about anything being an offence? We're talking about
responsibility, not right or wrong.

Nev..
'03 ZX12R

 

I can't.

 

....but I'm not commenting on your other comments, I'm commenting on this
particular comment, where you pretty unambiguously state that aus.moto posters
will side for or against Sanbar based on their own particular style of
riding. The people I've read about who have successfully claimed against
councils for accidents which have been caused by road condition more often
than not seem to be the cautious, defensive riding, greybearded, Ulysses
types.

Nev..
'03 ZX12R

 

Placebo!

"A friend in need's a friend indeed
a friend with weed is better"

 

When you say it, the first ch sounds like the ch in chocolate, and the
second ch sounds like...well, the ch in loch, which doesn't really help
too many folk I don't suppose. :-|

It means someone from the Highlands of Scotland.

regards,
CrazyCam

 

Spelt chuckter I'm told, pronounced choochter. The second ch has almost a k
sound.

cam.

 

Huh? What?

Theo